Are your beliefs rational?

[Ana the Ist]

Unless you personally experience it though, right?

Or are you of the belief that one can't ever verify anything?

No...it would invalidate all your beliefs about Jesus, including whatever experiences with Jesus you thought you had.

Remember, belief in Jesus would be irrational (according to your reasoning here) because you can never validate the belief he existed. So any subsequent beliefs about Jesus, like the belief that he's god/the son of god, or the belief that you've "experienced him, etc....they would all be irrational as well.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Plus there's still a logical difference between believing in something that was verified in the past by witnesses

You can't verify that it was verified in the past by witnesses.

 

[Chriliman]

You can't verify that it was verified in the past by witnesses.

So personal experience is the only verification one can have? If that's what you think, I agree.

 

[loveofourlord]

I asked you to learn the context of my conversation.

No I got it and read it, your analogy was just that terrible.

 

[loveofourlord]

True, only when you know you're poisoned and see the symptoms for yourself do you begin desiring the cure.

I think what Sanoy is saying is that if you know your poisoned and someone offers you the cure, it'd be irrational to not take it.

my point is, pascals wager is like a muslim coming up to you and saying, "Your poisoned by Allah and I have the cure for you." to a atheist christian claims of being poisoned are going to have about as much weight.

 

[Sanoy]

No I got it and read it, your analogy was just that terrible.

I read your comment on it. You didn't get it because you commented before you investigated the context. Or do you claim to have searched out the context before comment 158?

 

[Ana the Ist]

So personal experience is the only verification one can have? If that's what you think, I agree.

No...that's not what I think, in fact I don't agree with the premise of your thread...I haven't seen anyone here that does. You don't seem very concerned with arguments against your particular reasoning here though.

I was simply using an example of your reasoning to point out it's flaws...but it seems to be lost on you.

 

[Chriliman]

No...that's not what I think, in fact I don't agree with the premise of your thread...I haven't seen anyone here that does. You don't seem very concerned with arguments against your particular reasoning here though.

I was simply using an example of your reasoning to point out it's flaws...but it seems to be lost on you.

Obviously you don't agree, but I can't seem to understand why. You know my position quite well and that is that we should reject beliefs that can't ever be verified, past, present or future. Logically this doesn't include past events that were verified, present events that are being verified, and future events that will be verified.

Please, if you're ever confused about what I'm saying, reference this post. Thanks!

 

[Chriliman]

my point is, pascals wager is like a muslim coming up to you and saying, "Your poisoned by Allah and I have the cure for you." to a atheist christian claims of being poisoned are going to have about as much weight.

Agreed.

Sanoy was saying the person knows they're poisoned and is being offered the cure. Not taking the cure is irrational if you know you're poisoned.

 

[loveofourlord]

Agreed.

Sanoy was saying the person knows they're poisoned and is being offered the cure. Not taking the cure is irrational if you know you're poisoned.

true, but he's saying it to atheists that don't believe in the cure or the poison.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Obviously you don't agree, but I can't seem to understand why.

Because we're talking about your beliefs right now...it's not logical to believe in something now simply because you think there might be evidence for it at some point in the future. It's more logical to base your belief on the evidence you have now.

You know my position quite well and that is that we should reject beliefs that can't ever be verified, past, present or future. Logically this doesn't include past events that were verified, present events that are being verified, and future events that will be verified.

Again, you can't know that something was verified 2000 years ago.

 

[Sanoy]

true, but he's saying it to atheists that don't believe in the cure or the poison.

The poison is death not sin, or hell. Atheists are aware that they are going to die. This is why I requested that you read the context.

I don't want to talk about this anymore. Lets just leave it where it is and move on in good standing with each other.

 

[Chriliman]

Because we're talking about your beliefs right now...it's not logical to believe in something now simply because you think there might be evidence for it at some point in the future. It's more logical to base your belief on the evidence you have now.

I never said it was logical to do that. Beliefs are formed based on evidence, which includes(but isn't limited to) information about the past and present, as well as predictions about the future.

Again, you can't know that something was verified 2000 years ago.

This doesn't mean it wasn't actually verified, which is why someone would either believe it or reject it or withhold judgment about it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I never said it was logical to do that. Beliefs are formed based on evidence, which includes(but isn't limited to) information about the past and present, as well as predictions about the future.

Predictions of the future aren't evidence for currently held beliefs.

Let's suppose a man was on trial for murder...and you sit upon the jury.

There's no current evidence that he committed the murder...but the prosecutor offers you a prediction that one day, far into the future, there will be evidence that the defendant committed the murder.

Would you accept this as evidence of his guilt and convict him of murder? I'm hoping you can realize just how stupid that would be...

This doesn't mean it wasn't actually verified, which is why someone would either believe it or reject it or withhold judgment about it.

That doesn't mean it was verified either...and that's the point. You have no way of knowing if it was, verified or not...so it will always be impossible for you to verify, and by your reasoning, irrational to believe in.

 

[Chriliman]

Predictions of the future aren't evidence for currently held beliefs.

Let's suppose a man was on trial for murder...and you sit upon the jury.

There's no current evidence that he committed the murder...but the prosecutor offers you a prediction that one day, far into the future, there will be evidence that the defendant committed the murder.

Would you accept this as evidence of his guilt and convict him of murder? I'm hoping you can realize just how stupid that would be...

Predictions about the future that are based on good evidence/rational can sway people's beliefs enough to affect their choices now. Stock market comes to mind.

That doesn't mean it was verified either...and that's the point. You have no way of knowing if it was, verified or not...so it will always be impossible for you to verify, and by your reasoning, irrational to believe in.

If it's true that Jesus is immortal, this could still be verified at any time and for you to claim it's impossible, would have to mean you know immortality is impossible, which is a very bold claim. I would think you'd have to experience all time in order to know immortality is impossible - pretty sure you haven't done that so stop making silly claims.

That's it for me for now.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Predictions about the future that are based on good evidence/rational can sway people's beliefs enough to affect their choices now. Stock market comes to mind.

And stock market predictions are often wrong...that's the point, predictions themselves aren't evidence.

If it's true that Jesus is immortal,

That isn't something you can verify...but that's beside the point. It's already irrational, according to you, to believe in Jesus because you can't ever verify his existence...so making up claims about him doesn't change the fact that belief in him is irrational.

this could still be verified at any time and for you to claim it's impossible, would have to mean you know immortality is impossible, which is a very bold claim.

Not really...all the evidence suggests immortality is impossible.

I would think you'd have to experience all time in order to know immortality is impossible - pretty sure you haven't done that so stop making silly claims.

That's it for me for now.

I'm just following your personal reasoning here...but I agree that it does lead to some silly claims.

 

[Chriliman]

And stock market predictions are often wrong...that's the point, predictions themselves aren't evidence.





That isn't something you can verify...but that's beside the point. It's already irrational, according to you, to believe in Jesus because you can't ever verify his existence...so making up claims about him doesn't change the fact that belief in him is irrational.




Not really...all the evidence suggests immortality is impossible.



I'm just following your personal reasoning here...but I agree that it does lead to some silly claims.

Again, if you wake up after being dead you will have verified that you're immortal. You seem to somehow know this is impossible, but in reality you don't know that. If you're following my logic you should agree.

 

[quatona]

Again, if you wake up after being dead you will have verified that you're immortal.

Again: No, you don´t.

 

[Chriliman]

Again: No, you don´t.

How do you know that this will never happen after you die?

 

[Belk]

Is it rational to believe something that can't be demonstrated or known?

Reason I ask is because I've come accross multiple people who think it's rational to believe all beings will cease to exist after death, when this 'truth' can't be demonstrated or known.

Isn't it rational to verify, or at least be able to verify in the future, that your beliefs are true?

Thoughts?

This truth can indeed be demonstrated and known.